Allowed

Smt. Rani v. State by Banasawadi Police Station

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2023CRL.P/343/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka considered a criminal petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to undergo a limited period of custodial interrogation to aid investigation before being enlarged on bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail by taking a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties after undergoing limited custodial interrogation.

Smt. Rani Vs State by Banasawadi Police Station — Anticipatory Bail | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 343 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 343 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. RANI, W/O LATE E GOPINATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.112, BAIYAPPANAHALLI, M S NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 033.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI MANJUNATH V, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE BY BANASAWADI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 043, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI VISHWA MURTHY.,HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HER ARREST IN CR.NO.535/2021 OF BANASWADI P.S., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 468, 417, 471, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 343 of 2023

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

Heard Sri. Manjunath V., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vishwa Murthy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State. Perused the records.

¶21

Present petition is filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶22

“Wherefore the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent Police i.e., Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru to release the petitioner in the event of her arrest in Crime No.535/2021 registered against Mr. John Moses and others wherein the petitioner herein arrayed as Accused No.11 for the alleged offence under Section 420, 465, 468, 417, 471, 120-B R/w Section 34 of IPC pending before 11th Addl. CMM Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru in the interest of justice and equity."

¶23

The brief facts of the case are as under:

¶24

Sri. K. R. Chendrashekar being a police officer lodged a complaint with Banaswadi Police Station which was registered in Crime NO.535/2021 on 15.11.2021 for the offences

¶25

¶26

CRL.P No. 343 of 2023

¶27

punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 417, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) against the present petitioner and ten other persons.

¶28

Gist of the complaint reveals that there was a scam whereby some unknown people creating the documents, used to approach the Small Causes Court, Bengaluru stating that few of them are owners and few of them are tenants on the basis of fictitious documents, used to obtain the orders of the Court for ejectment of the alleged tenant and whereby the real owners of the property were being defrauded.

¶29

On such things being repeatedly noticed by the Court, a direction was issued on the judicial side by the trial Judge. Based on the same, initial enquiry was held and police was required to file necessary complaints and take action against such people who have indulged in such scams in fabricating the documents.

¶30

In the present case also, it is contended that in

¶31

respect of property bearing No.112 measuring 3280 sq. ft. with a sheetroof there-on, there appears to have been a power of

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 343 of 2023

¶34

attorney executed by the owner - Smt. Rani in favour of some third party and some action was initiated. Police after registering the case are investigating the matter.

¶35

The petitioner approached XIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayohall Unit, Bengaluru (CCH-22) for grant of anticipatory bail in Criminal Miscellaneous No.26033/2022. The learned District Judge by order dated 19.12.2022, rejected the request of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

Sri. Manjunath V., learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the bail petition vehemently contended that the petitioner is a victim in the case on hand and she has not executed any power of attorney in favour of anybody and actually she has been defrauded by the alleged incident and she continues to be an owner of the property bearing No.112, Maruti Seva Nagar, Baiyappanahalli, Bengaluru and she is the owner of the property after death of her husband - Gopinath as her daughters have executed a registered Release Deed in her favour and sought for grant of bail.

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 343 of 2023

¶39

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposes for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶40

In the light of the rival contentions, this Court perused the materials on record meticulously.

¶41

On such perusal, it is seen that the property earlier belongs to husband of the petitioner - Gopinath, which is an ancestral property. Gopinath has became the owner of the disputed property from his father through the notarized will and thereafter, the Gopinath died and his two daughters and wife became the owners of the property and two daughters have executed the registered Release Deed in favour of the petitioner as could be seen from the documents produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the bail petition.

¶42

Prima facie , these documents would reveal that it the Rani, who is the owner of the property.

¶43

However, if there is concoction/fabrication of documents in respect of the property and some other action has been taken, the petitioner cannot be held responsible unless the petitioner also joins the hand with them. It is for

¶44

¶45

CRL.P No. 343 of 2023

¶46

the Investigating Agency to investigate the matter in proper manner and file appropriate report.

¶47

Admittedly, the petitioner is not available to the Investigating Agency and taking note of the fact that the petitioner is a lady, directing the petitioner to join the investigation and undergo limited period of custodial interrogation would facilitate the investigation process and also protect the right of the petitioner.

¶48

Accordingly, without further discussion on the merits of the matter, this Court passes the following:

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

1. The Criminal Petition is allowed .

¶51

Petitioner-accused is directed to join the investigation by appearing before the Investigating Officer on 25.03.2023 at 10.00 a.m. Investigating Officer is at liberty to take the petitioner to custody and complete the custodial investigation on the same day before 6.00 p.m. Petitioner is directed to co-operate with the investigation process including furnishing the specimen hand writing, signature as is required for investigating Agency. Thereafter, the petitioner be enlarged on bail by taking a

¶52

¶53

CRL.P No. 343 of 2023

¶54

personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) with two sureties for the like-sum to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer;

¶55

Petitioner shall attend the Court regularly;

¶56

Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses directly/indirectly;

¶57

Petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of Bengaluru District without prior permission;

¶58

Petitioner shall mark her attendance before the Investigating Officer on every third Sunday between 10.00 am and 2.00 pm., till the charge sheet is filed.

¶59

If any of the above conditions are violated, the prosecution is at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail order.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/JUDGE

VBS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Smt. Rani v. State by Banasawadi Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rani v. State by Banasawadi Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Umar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Ummarkunhi @ Mohammedkunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Ummar Kunhi @ Mohammed Kunhi @ Kunhi Vs State of Karnataka

Chikkanarasimhaiah @ Chikkanarasaiah Vs State by Annapoorneshwari Nagar P.S.

Umaidh M Vs the State of Karnataka

Raghu. N Vs the State of Karnataka